THE DEPARTMENT of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) Region 6 recently reported that 43,937 households in Western Visayas have “exited” the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) as of March 31, 2025. These families, distinct from the 30,858 who “graduated” for meeting the income-based self-sufficiency criteria, were removed primarily due to “natural attrition” — that is, they no longer have children aged 0 to 18 or a pregnant member, making them ineligible under current guidelines.
But while their removal from the program might be technically justified, what happens to these families after delisting? That is a question DSWD — and local governments — must urgently confront.
The term “exit” may sound neutral, even routine, but for many households, it can represent a sudden loss of lifeline support. In Iloilo alone, 19,132 households have exited the program, followed by Capiz (9,055) and Antique (6,917). These are thousands of families potentially facing renewed financial hardship, especially those who were delisted not for attaining self-sufficiency, but for simply no longer fitting the program’s demographic mold.
The absence of children does not equate to the absence of poverty. A couple who once had 4Ps support for their children’s education might now be caring for aging parents or struggling with health issues themselves. If no proper transition or follow-up mechanisms are in place, these households risk slipping through the cracks — becoming invisible to the very system that once helped them.
Even more alarming is the case of families removed for “non-compliance.” Were they willfully defiant of the program’s conditions, or were they grappling with barriers like inaccessible schools, health centers, or unstable livelihoods? Without deeper context, we risk punishing the marginalized for their disadvantage.
This is why post-exit monitoring must become a standard component of the 4Ps framework. DSWD should not just track who leaves, but what happens to them after. Are they still food secure? Do they have stable incomes? Are their children, though now older, still on a path to better opportunities?
Such data would not only inform more compassionate policymaking — it would also help evaluate whether the 4Ps is truly achieving its long-term goal of breaking the cycle of poverty. Graduation and exit must not be seen as endpoints, but as transitions that require continued vigilance and support.
If we are to measure success, let us not stop at counting exits. Let us start tracking outcomes. Because in the end, poverty is not solved by deletion — it is overcome by transformation. And transformation requires continuity, accountability, and above all, human dignity.
